If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: A god in buddhism?

Hi Guys,

Here is my simplistic view:

If there is a "God" ... whether in the Judeo-Christian way or some other ... I will fetch water and chop wood.

If there is no "God", I will fetch water and chop wood.

If there is a "God" or "Power" or "Spirit" who has kindly given us life, I will honor that fact by living that life fully and seeking to be a human being who does little harm to others of his/her/its/whatever's creatures and creations.

And if there is no such "God" or "Power" or "Spirit", I will still live this life fully and seek to do little harm.

I think that, in our Zen Practice, we do taste a truth that some people may call "God" or "That" or "Thou" or "Buddha" or some such name. It is the sensation that there is some intimate connection to this universe, some profound basis to our being born, some deep beauty behind it all. In fact, we experience that this Reality, and all creatures, are just who we are ... that we are just That.

But my attitude remains much like a newborn infant lying in a crib, not understanding anything beyond the fact that shadows are passing before its eyes. The world contains many mysteries that the infant cannot fathom. Yet somehow we were allowed the wonder of life, and something in this world provides the sun and air and nutriment and drink we need to survive. Here we are, and some wonderful cause(s) let us be so!

If it is just the world, mechanical and unthinking, I express my gratitude to that.

If it is a "god" or "power" or "consciousness" or something else far beyond our understanding, I express my gratitude to that.

Our Zen Way is said to be about "Not Knowing". This "Not Knowing" provides Wisdom in several ways.

For one, sometimes we can better understand this world by dropping our ideas and preconceptions ... for example, when we drop our sense of separation from this world, and drop our small human categories, judgments and resistance to its ways. Then, we experience a new face, another way of being who we are. We are the world and each other, the world is just who we are.

But for another, "Not Knowing" means that there are mysteries that even the greatest minds, the prophets and mystics, even a Buddha, cannot know ... for we are small human creatures. Thus, the Buddha refused to speak to such topics. He did not need to. He did not need to in the very same way that a gardener need not know the name and origin of every blade of grass and flower in order to tend the garden, and a sailor need not know every inch of the sea and its coastlines in order to sail the sea in front of him. The gardener or the sailor need not know who or what created the garden or sea in order to know what best to do.

Thus, we are instructed by the Buddha to tend this garden well, sail this vessel well.

Pardon all the flowery language. Having said too much, I now will go chop wood, fetch water.

Re: A god in buddhism?

It is a good time to mention the Buddha's famous analogy of the poison arrow as to why he would not propound on many "Big" questions (from the Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta) ...

"Malunkyaputta, did I ever say to you, 'Come, Malunkyaputta, live the holy life under me, and I will declare to you that 'The cosmos is eternal,' or 'The cosmos is not eternal,' or 'The cosmos is finite,' or 'The cosmos is infinite,' or 'The soul & the body are the same,' or 'The soul is one thing and the body another,' or 'After death a Tathagata exists,' or 'After death a Tathagata does not exist,' or 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist,' or 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist'?"

"No, lord."

...

"It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him.
...
"So, Malunkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared, and what is declared by me as declared. And what is undeclared by me? 'The cosmos is eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is not eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is finite'... 'The cosmos is infinite'... 'The soul & the body are the same'... 'The soul is one thing and the body another'... 'After death a Tathagata exists'... 'After death a Tathagata does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' is undeclared by me.

"And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are undeclared by me.

"And what is declared by me? 'This is stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the origination of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the cessation of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress,' is declared by me. And why are they declared by me? Because they are connected with the goal, are fundamental to the holy life. They lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are declared by me.

"So, Malunkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared, and what is declared by me as declared."

Re: A god in buddhism?

Originally Posted by Jundo

It is a good time to mention the Buddha's famous analogy of the poison arrow as to why he would not propound on many "Big" questions (from the Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta) ...

"Malunkyaputta, did I ever say to you, 'Come, Malunkyaputta, live the holy life under me, and I will declare to you that 'The cosmos is eternal,' or 'The cosmos is not eternal,' or 'The cosmos is finite,' or 'The cosmos is infinite,' or 'The soul & the body are the same,' or 'The soul is one thing and the body another,' or 'After death a Tathagata exists,' or 'After death a Tathagata does not exist,' or 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist,' or 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist'?"

"No, lord."

...

"It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him.
...
"So, Malunkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared, and what is declared by me as declared. And what is undeclared by me? 'The cosmos is eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is not eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is finite'... 'The cosmos is infinite'... 'The soul & the body are the same'... 'The soul is one thing and the body another'... 'After death a Tathagata exists'... 'After death a Tathagata does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' is undeclared by me.

"And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are undeclared by me.

"And what is declared by me? 'This is stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the origination of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the cessation of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress,' is declared by me. And why are they declared by me? Because they are connected with the goal, are fundamental to the holy life. They lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are declared by me.

"So, Malunkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared, and what is declared by me as declared."

Re: A god in buddhism?

The very word "god" suggests not a force but a being, made in the image of man. Since Soto Zen Buddhism has no such being, then the question is simple. It is different, however, for Tibetan Buddhism, which has a whole pantheon of "gods" (or Buddhas), to which they attribute specific powers, such as Catholic saints. Nevertheless, they claim there is no "god" in Tibetan Buddhism; I think that claim comes from the lack of a single creative being overseeing or jump-starting the universe.

The word "god" as we know it is different, though, from "gods" of Asian traditions. We come from a monotheistic tradition where there is only a single "god" whereas many Asian traditions have (like the Greeks) many gods. Naturally, Catholics have saints, which are personifications of what previous pagan religions had, so there's an overlap.

Re: A god in buddhism?

I have heard from a scholar that the Wiki summary is quite good ... I have always been prone to "dissatisfaction" "friction" "frustration" and the like, referring to our self's wish for conditions to be X, but they are Y.

Dukkha (P?li ?????; Sanskrit ???? du?kha; according to grammatical tradition derived from dus-kha "uneasy", but according to Monier-Williams more likely a Prakritized form of dus-stha "unsteady, disquieted") is a central concept in Buddhism, the word roughly corresponding to a number of terms in English including suffering, pain, sorrow, affliction, anxiety, dissatisfaction, discomfort, anguish, stress, misery, and frustration.

In classic Sanskrit, the term du?kha was often compared to a large potter's wheel that would screech as it was spun around, and did not turn smoothly. The opposite of dukkha was the term sukha, which brought to mind a potter's wheel that turned smoothly and noiselessly. In other Buddhist-influenced cultures, similar imagery was used to describe dukkha. An example from China is the cart with one wheel that is slightly broken, so that the rider is jolted each time the wheel rolls over the broken spot.

Although dukkha is often translated as "suffering", its philosophical meaning is more analgous to "disquietude" as in the condition of being disturbed. As such, "suffering" is too narrow a translation with "negative emotional connotations" (Jeffrey Po)[1], which can give the impression that the Buddhist view is one of pessimism, but Buddhism is neither pessimistic nor optimistic, but realistic. Thus in English-language Buddhist literature dukkha is often left untranslated, so as to encompass its full range of meaning. [2] [3] [4].

Dukkha was translated as k? (? "bitterness; hardship; suffering; pain") in Chinese Buddhism, and this loanword is pronounced ku (?) in Japanese Buddhism and ko (?) in Korean Buddhism

Re: A god in buddhism?

Dukkha (P?li ?????; Sanskrit ???? du?kha; according to grammatical tradition derived from dus-kha "uneasy", but according to Monier-Williams more likely a Prakritized form of dus-stha "unsteady, disquieted") is a central concept in Buddhism, the word roughly corresponding to a number of terms in English including suffering, pain, sorrow, affliction, anxiety, dissatisfaction, discomfort, anguish, stress, misery, and frustration.

Although dukkha is often translated as "suffering", its philosophical meaning is more analgous to "disquietude" as in the condition of being disturbed. As such, "suffering" is too narrow a translation with "negative emotional connotations" (Jeffrey Po)[1], which can give the impression that the Buddhist view is one of pessimism, but Buddhism is neither pessimistic nor optimistic, but realistic. Thus in English-language Buddhist literature dukkha is often left untranslated, so as to encompass its full range of meaning. [2] [3] [4].

Dukkha was translated as k? (? "bitterness; hardship; suffering; pain") in Chinese Buddhism, and this loanword is pronounced ku (?) in Japanese Buddhism and ko (?) in Korean Buddhism

Gassho, J

How extraordinary! I've never read a complete description of "dukkha" before, but now I notice that we have quite a similar word in Finnish, "tuska". "Tuskaisuus", being full of "tuska", means being anguished, stressed, in emotional and/or physical pain. Suddenly I understand the full meaning of dukkha.